Nissan Leaf - <AUTHOR> http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/ <comment><USER3> Having used both (flash extensively, js less so), I agree that flash's closed plugin status completely sucks, and this is major.

That said, for nearly every other aspect of developing thick client RIAs and complex visual experiences, flash/flex/as3 wins by a mile. From IDEs to the display api to as3 apis in general to the true object oriented architecture to lack of browser inconsistencies to client side storage to sockets and networking options to modular applications.

Say what you want about flash. It certainly has its problems and it has certainly been abused, but let's not ignore all the areas where js is still playing catch up and will be for a long time (even it's just IE). Flash has been a lead innovator in web-based interfaces for many years. Even if it's true that it's in decline, completely discounting such an important technology only shows ignorance.

<comment><USER4> "true object oriented architecture"? I agree with that, but what are you comparing it to?

<comment><USER3> HTML/Javascript

<comment><USER4> And in what way do you find JavaScript to be less than "truly" object oriented?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a little worried about losing what is to me one of the main advantages of Flash: that it can be blocked. So your all singing, all dancing website shuts the hell up and behaves like a sedate page full of text and static images.

I mean, I can block JS, but it's irritating to have to. That's generally used for useful things like navigation. Flash marks something up as useless pizazz.

<comment><USER6> Very interesting point here.

Maybe Adobe's next ad campaign will feature this idea: Flash is better because you can turn it off. In fact, if you turn it off, you remove 99% of all truly annoying ads on the web.

Thinking ahead, maybe we need a ClickToJS...

<comment><USER7> We have one, it's called NoScript.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't understand how we've gone from "Flash is crap for entire websites" (edit: which is almost always true) to "Flash is the devil in every situation". It has its place, Javascript will never and _shouldn't_ try and "kill" Flash, they're different.

<comment><USER9> Flash is a threat to the openness of the web. I can't reliably watch video, play games, or do anything else requiring Flash on my computer because I run Linux. Requiring you run an OS of Adobe's choosing is antithetical to the basic tenets of the web.

<comment><USER10> No it's only antithetical to the tenets of Linux users.

edit: Just saying, people who knowingly choose Linux don't expect to use Flash.

<comment><USER11> I disagree. The web exists because browsers and servers communicate based on open standards. The HN server doesn't know or care what OS or browser I'm using. I could be sitting here typing in my GET requests manually if I was fast enough. Nobody cares. It's a protocol.

When the web relies on a technology where the "protocol" is "first install this proprietary plugin, if it's available for your setup, and if not, screw you," it is antithetical to the protocol-based approach.

Look at how much browsers have improved in the last few years, making new things possible on sites. This happened because anybody can write a browser that conforms to HTTP protocols, Javascript specifications, etc. Do you see the same kind of improvement in Flash players? No. Because there isn't competition.

The web is better off without Flash. Or anything else that can't have 100 competing implementations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One should note that if you pull the site up in IE it still uses flash, which means we still need flash. Unless you're willing to say goodbye to 40% of your customers.

<comment><USER13> Oh whatever. I can see it on me iPad. And iPhone. And Android. Who uses a fucking computer these days anyway? Programmers? ;-)

<comment><USER14> Well, you can _see_ it but you can't really _use_ it. It's brutally unresponsive and you can't scroll the text popups. Kind of a waste to dodge Flash and ignore the biggest reason to do so.

<comment><USER13> Wait now, hold on a minute. I thought people have been saying that Flash on the Android was horribly slow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Unless ... You want to record video or audio from a user. Or run more than 5 fps in IE7 (about 25% of our users). Everyone says flash is a piece of crap but you can see from stuff like boxcar2d.com that can run for days without crashing or leaking. It's about how it's coded. There are tons of poorly programmed flashes out there but that doesn't make Flash bad. Flash has been abused but it's not the devil. far from it.

<comment><USER15> PS the links for the video or any of the others around the car don't work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> There is a desc tag:

<desc>Created with Raphaël</desc>

<http://raphaeljs.com/reference.html>

Awesome stuff.

<comment><USER17> What's this then?

[http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric- car/js/js.swf__v2.0.2...](http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric- car/js/js.swf__v2.0.22.gz.js)

<comment><USER18> Most probably they will have a Flash fallback. Didn't try the page in IE6 though..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A lot of grandiose claims in hopes of the death of Flash around here. As though Flash has never done anything good for anyone.

I agree that it's nice that the browsers are now supporting new features that allow so much well needed functionality across the board - but they're really just now catching up to what Flash has offered us for years.

Forget all-flash websites. Seriously, forget them. I like the OP's site about as much as I liked flash intros from 2001 before they started adding "Skip This" buttons. I'm referring to media players, socket clients, file uploading tools worth using, vector animation, a decent programming experience that worked across the board (AS3 is actually a fun language if you give it a real shot).

Where would the web be without Youtube? Where would Youtube be without Flash? How about last.fm? or Pandora? Do you remember what the web was like before flash? Real Player, anyone? Java applets? I'll take a flash game over a Java applet any day. Regardless if you use these media-centric sites personally, they changed the internet as we know it - making it accessible to normal human beings. To disregard Flash's place in that history doesn't make any sense.

And it's far from over. The browsers STILL haven't gotten media playback right across the board. Everything's a big fat beta right now and IE is dragging us behind as usual. It would be nice if everyone could at least agree on a codec or two, but no. Meanwhile, flash-based media players still work just about everywhere.

I'm happy that the browsers are catching up with Flash - truly. I loved developing in Actionscript, and I'll love replacing it. But these claims that Flash is somehow the bane of the internet is to deny some of the very foundations of how successful the internet has become.

<comment><USER20> > Where would Youtube be without Flash?

<http://www.youtube.com/html5>

> To disregard Flash's place in that history doesn't make any sense.

Nobody is saying that Flash wasn't worthwhile, ever. It's just nice that something that used to be a large part of the web can be taken out of the hands of a company, and returned to us all.

> But these claims that Flash is somehow the bane of the internet is to deny > some of the very foundations of how successful the internet has become.

Ehhhh I'd disagree. I certainly agree that until very recently (and not quite yet for everyone), Flash is no longer needed, and that that's a good thing. Flash is a threat to the Internet: it's in the hands of Adobe. The web should be open, and for everyone. But that's precisely _because_ the internet has become so successful. It's far too important to be left under corporate control.

<comment><USER21> > <http://www.youtube.com/html5>

So what you're saying is that without Flash, YouTube wouldn't have existed until 2009 or 2010?

<comment><USER20> Yes, and that that has no bearing on Flash's importance today. Lots of things that seemed awesome in 2004 aren't that great in 2011.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Only on HN you submit an _electric car_ website without further comment - <USER2> instead of discussing the car everyone starts arguing over the implementation of the website. ;-)

<comment><USER23> This was originally submitted with a title that read, "Flash is dead forever" or something similarly sensational and was meant to point out the actual site implementation. In accordance with HN guidelines, the submissions title has been changed to reflect the given title of the actual submission.

<comment><USER24> This whole comment page makes so much more sense. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Well it appears that at least the linked site does need flash. If you click on features and specifications the embedded video is flash (firefox 3.6)

So not quite true.

<comment><USER26> I assumed it was a <video/> element that Firefox wouldn't render because it used H.264 video, but no... it's an ordinary Flash video. How odd.

<comment><USER27> It seemed to play without Flash in Chrome 10.0.648.82 on Linux.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Very cool, but I'm not sure creating a site that looks JUST like a flash site is really the right direction... ;)

<comment><USER29> You've got to convince the masses, that you can do Flash ... without flash first, before you can get them to stop using flash.

<comment><USER21> As soon as the masses decide that HTML5 = "Flash, but better", everything that is bad about Flash will rapidly become everything that's bad about HTML5.

Changing the underlying technology will not change the people who use it.

<comment><USER30> It will be worse. This stuff can't be contained with simple tools like Flashblock. Unless you want to block all Javascript by default, which will probably break 99% websites in the near future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is awesome. I was expecting to see HTML5 and was surprised when it wasn't. The doctype is strict and a lot of the interface uses JavaScript. The center navigations use svg and Raphael[1]. Either way, this is pretty sweet. And so is the car.

[1] <http://raphaeljs.com/>

</comment><comment><USER32> Nice site. We don't need Flash anymore you say?

Keep me posted when RTMP media, video/webcam/audio capture, audio analysis, content protection is supported cross browser in HTML and JS.

</comment><comment><USER33> I was going to post this as a reply, but several people made the comment that them duplicating what Flash could do, even if done in HTML and JS, wasn't the right path? I can understand the hatred of Flash itself, but why the dislike for these types of sites in general? Not everything needs to be plain text, easily scanable, SEO compatible, clean, simple, etc.

This site is as much about marketing and generating appeal as it is about information. I don't see anything wrong with how it was done. Someone enlighten me please.

Edit: And somewhat off-topic - is it a requirement that production electrics cars have to hideous? Tesla and Chevy (Volt) seem to be the only ones that have made them actually nice to look at.

<comment><USER34> It's not a requirement that they look hideous, but for mass production hybrid / all-electric cars, it's kind of a requirement that they look DIFFERENT.

Why? Because people who are choosing to buy a hybrid or electric usually want EVERYONE ELSE to know they got one. That's one reason the Prius has no "regular" version - if you see a Prius, and its distinctive shape, you immediately know the person bought a hybrid. With other cars, (including the Tesla) you have to see the badges on the back to know. So part of the "moral reward" for buying hybrid, paying more and sacrificing some performance is lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Their feedback form doesn't work in Safari. The site feels like a Flash site, but doesn't use flash, which is nice!

It also works on my iPad. The 360 is a bit slow but it's there.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why would a manager at Nissan allow this to be built? They now have to maintain two parallel versions of their complex site. What is the non- ideological payoff?

<comment><USER36> In case it was unclear, this is a serious question. I'm wondering why a business would build a complex HTML5 site if they're going to have to build a flash version anyway.

<comment><USER37> I would imagine the case made was to support iPads - presumably a small segment of visitors but I'm sure the agency devs wanted to play!

<comment><USER36> Oh, right -- good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> What's seriously needed is an HTML5 authoring program that can be used with a GUI and zero programming skills. Otherwise Flash will be very needed in the future.

<comment><USER20> A HNer is working on this, actually: <http://radiapp.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There a huge irony to this post. Look who made the site: <http://criticalmass.com>

It's talent that matters, not the platform.

</comment><comment><USER39> If by 'we' you mean Nissan, well... great.

Counterexample: [http://blog.phono.com/2011/02/17/how-to-build-a-voip- based-b...](http://blog.phono.com/2011/02/17/how-to-build-a-voip-based-baby- monitor/) (browser-based VOIP, Flash under the hood)

Bizarrely, Chrome has support for speech input on text-based forms which translates microphone input to text on their servers, but it doesn't expose direct access to the audio. Argh!

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm surprised no one has suggested the obvious reason why making a site like this is not necessarily "wasted extra effort" for Nissan. When Apple's iAd platform was unveiled, they demoed... a Nissan Leaf ad. That ad content had to be written in javascript, so it probably wasn't a huge leap to say hey let's push that content out to the web as well.

<comment><USER41> I was a developer at the studio that did this. Brands like Nissan think much more ahead than this, and the two development efforts went on in parallel (another studio did the iAd work.) In fact, if I'm not mistaken the leaf site launched before the iAd did, or at least really close together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> We'll need flash until we have a GOOD IDE for those technologies...

<comment><USER43> This is the biggest factor in Flash going away. In our shop, we have a guys that would never be able to code in a text editor but can bang out great looking advertising at amazing speeds (which means cheap production costs) because of the Flash IDE.

If you believe that advertisers can live without animation, you have your head in the sand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Impressive, to be sure. But terms like "anything" and "ever" are hyperbolic. Flash isn't going anywhere for years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, unabashed, brazen hyperbole to be sure. Good headline though, I thought.

The thing that really struck me the most about this is that as little as 2 years ago there would have been absolutely no chance of deploying a huge brand interactive experience without Flash.

This is the first time I've seen a site that I thought was _obviously_ Flash only to right-click and not see "Zoom in". I was pretty gobsmacked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> There is some flash on there (a video, under Specs > Features & Specs), but this is still a very impressive demonstration of how little it is actually required to achieve these kinds of effect.

</comment><comment><USER46> "Say hello" to a REALLY slow running website and my hardware ain't that shabby. Running FF 3.6 It's very cool but a little too much too soon for general consumption IMO.

</comment><comment><USER47> Hmm flashblock is triggered for some reason but works anyway.

Those menus are rather distracting and complicated for an average consumer site.

ps. OT but the "Leaf" is not available in _green_ ???

<comment><USER48> Flashblock might be triggered due to SoundManager 2.

Which is funny, considering in many cases it's probably Flash handling the audio for this, and thus the title is inaccurate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Unless there's a vector-based action game running at a decent frame rate hidden somewhere on that site, I don't think you've adequately proven your statement.

</comment><comment><USER50> Nice and all, but the scroll bars don't work on the iPad, nor is there a way to scroll the tag list on the left. A step in the right direction though.

</comment><comment><USER51> I used my back button and it ... worked. Wow.

</comment><comment><USER52> Anybody have an idea on how this was done?

Javascript by hand?

<comment><USER7> As above, it uses the Raphael JavaScript drawing and animation library.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I don't get why this is better than standard, non-animated text. I just want information about the freaking leaf. By all means, make the typography and design look pretty, but stop with the damn animation. I don't want to have to re-learn a new interface every I want to learn about a new product.

</comment><comment><USER54> The intro video uses the video tag to play this video: [http://www.nissanusa.com/ev/media/video/nissan-leaf- intro.mp...](http://www.nissanusa.com/ev/media/video/nissan-leaf-intro.mp4)

No flash there. It will fall back to flash in Internet Explorer.

</comment><comment><USER55> Stop.... Hoooldup.

Replicating what Flash does in HTML, CSS, SVG & JS is not the way forward.

</comment><comment><USER56> It's kind of funny that they built their (very similar-looking) iAd with HTML5, and then went ahead with a Flash marketing site. Seems like there could have been some shared resources there.

</comment><comment><USER57> Wow! I like that!! Much faster.. and not need of any plugin that crashes every now and then.

Plus you don't lose on search engines and history management can be left to the browser.

</comment><comment><USER58> Anyone know how they created the scrollbar in the popup dialog boxes? It works in IE6 as well, though doesn't look as pretty as in Chrome/FF.

<comment><USER59> JScrollpane: <http://jscrollpane.kelvinluck.com/> Good stuff, but doesn't work with touch/mobile devices. It would have been nice if they would have detected the userAgent before calling JScrollpane, as default scrollbars do work with mobile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> On this site, the browser "back" button doesn't always behave as expected. Ex: Go there. Click Back. Doesn't go back. Chrome 9.

</comment><comment><USER61> Chromium-9.0.597.84(0) and I see tons of flash on that page. I know because I'm using flash blocker.

</comment><comment><USER62> No one tell those "punch the monkey" ad authors... at least not before html5block is out.

</comment><comment><USER63> Aside from the whole Flash accessibility debate, this site is REALLY cool. I'm lovin it.

</comment><comment><USER64> Great. A whole new and cool way to make really unusable and shitty websites.

</comment><comment><USER65> Why are all the comments about flash? The Nissan Leaf is a car.

</comment><comment><USER66> Doh! Need a facebook account to "watch the electric revolution begin".

Never mind.

</comment><comment><USER67> Its still just as annoying even though its not done in flash...

</comment><comment><USER68> Ambitious, but it runs very, very poorly on my mbp (chrome).

</comment><comment><USER69> We still do until the <device> tag arrives in town.

</comment><comment><USER70> The world's best flash car site... done in HTML5.

</comment><comment><USER71> but hey, you can build ugly banners with html5 / canvas too ... and the performance will be the same. should be banish html5 too?

</comment><comment><USER72> HTML5 still can't interact with a webcam...

</comment><comment><USER73> Anyone know which agency did this?

<comment><USER43> Critical Mass, I believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Until it's possible to do audiotool.com you are not even close to be able to replace flash

<comment><USER75> ambitious but not impossible

<comment><USER74> It is impossible since you can't sync the sound properly

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Slick website. Ugly Car.

</comment><comment><USER77> Cool car. Oh, nevermind.

</comment><comment><USER78> I'm glad to see this. I for one am looking forward to the day when javascript is at the point where it offers a level of programing ease for animations, etc, that you get with flash. (It may have happened already, last time I did lingo programming it was called lingo, and I am not conversant with the state of the art in javascript.)

Or it seems that CSS is supporting animations and maybe that is a better choice over javascript? (because the browser, I presume, can optimize CSS a lot easier than javascript which can have arbitrary functionality.)

<comment><USER7> Flash is here to stay until someone creates a designer-oriented HTML5/JS/SVG IDE analogous to Adobe's designer-oriented Flash/AS IDE. Even after that point, it'll be a while before we see Flash head out the door. There's a lot that HTML5 doesn't address yet.

<comment><USER79> "Someone" might be Adobe: [http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adc-presents/preview-of- the-edge-p...](http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adc-presents/preview-of-the-edge- prototype-tool-for-html5-/)

<comment><USER80> I think it would be a dream for adobe, to be able to discharge themselves of maintaining their player on multiple architectures on browser makers.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. Adobe doesn't make much money off of the Flash Player, just the Flash IDE, so they'd be thrilled if they could offload Flash Player's functionality and the horrible reputation it gives them and just focus on creating a good IDE.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> it probably took the team 10x the time to do that this way instead of flash.

it will not work on 100% of the devices. but at least they got some clicks from us that they wouldn't otherway.

Continuing with this rationale: if done in flash, it would have take the team 10x the time to that instead of plain html. or 200x the time if done in a simpler html format, like a wikipedia article.

it would work on 100% of the devices... you would be able to use back/forward buttons, you would be able to translate on google translator and still see the site... wouldn't use all the cpu... it would load instantly for the user (well, it would be loading the rest bellow the fold while the user was reading/looking at the top part)... it would hopefully play well with screenreaders... i would still be able to use the left menu even after increasing font size... but you wouldn't have buttons that jump around.

<comment><USER41> I was a developer working at the studio that did this. Development took roughly the same amount of time in JS/HTML instead of flash.

<comment><USER81> That's awesome to know. And I really think you guys should do a writeup about the experience... :)

I bet folks here would love it too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> I'm not exaggerating when I say that the 360 view was very confusing because it wasn't really 3d. I was dragging my mouse in so many directions, only to find, only the horizontal component affected the presented image. :(

</comment><comment><USER83> Not bad but not cool . Not upto Flash</comment>


There's no avoiding Google+ - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193781852024980.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

<comment><USER3> The way that Google is pushing G+ down my throat has really made me more determined not to sign up.

The question that I ask myself every time I get redirected to a G+ sign-up page is What's in it for me? My friends don't use it it and I have no interest in using it as a glorified RSS/Twitter.

<comment><USER4> I think the occasional HackerNews posts are the only times I have ever ended up on a G+ page, in all honesty.

<comment><USER5> Yes, and on my phone it requires me to login to read a page. This is why I know skip any G+ links here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Vic Gundotra, who is in charge of Google+, says he sees little in-house controversy today. "There was more resistance two years ago," when the project wasn't well understood internally, he says."

This is absolute bullshit.

As I've mentioned before, I quit about 1.5 years ago, around the time the G+ fiasco was starting (and partially for that reason.) I also know, directly or indirectly, dozens of people who still work there. I can tell you that, if the internal complaints have died down, it's only because of the pervasive feeling of futility about it within the company. The engineers are most probably still not happy about the creeping Social-ificiation of everything, and they're not going to be happy, but they're also well aware that the company does not give two shits about their feelings on the subject.

</comment><comment><USER7> I just happened to register a Gmail account. You're given a Google+ profile by default but you can dig into the settings and delete it. It is a hassle and it is obnoxious, but it is possible.

That being said, I'm really frustrated with Google and other Social Media companies for this aggressive behavior.

There are hardly any laws in place protecting consumer information or regulating the troves of information being collected through social media. I imagine Facebook and Google at this point must have more extensive "dossiers" on more people than spy agencies.

It makes me a little uncomfortable, I don't fully understand why. Nor can I grasp what the implications of all this data collection/mining are yet. But here we are going full speed ahead.

Also I think this mindset officially makes me an old fart.

<comment><USER8> It never ceases to amaze me how people can go on gleefully accepting the thousands of dollars worth of free services that Google, FB et al. provide them year after year, and then in the next breath cry foul when said companies use the information voluntarily provided to them to try and make money.

No offense, but if you were really an old fart you would be accepting some personal responsibility for your role in this transaction.

<comment><USER9> You don't seem to appreciate what a major change G+ will be for some of Google's users. I for one would never want the following scenario from the article to happen. Ever.

        "You'll go to search for a camp stove on Google,
        and you'll find that your friend just bought one, and
        you'll be able to ask him about it," says Dylan Casey,
        a former Google+ product manager who now works at Path
        Inc., a smartphone-based social network.

Had I known that Google would one day decide to go social and share my private life, possibly without my consent, then I would have never "gleefully accepted the thousands of dollars worth of free services" in the first place. Fact is that this is a change of direction for Google and people have every right to voice their opinion about it... just like the TOS with Instagram... How is this any different?

<comment><USER10> First of all, how credible is a Path PM's opinion on the "camp stove" example? Conflict of interest, anyone? Did Vic G or anyone official at Google say that's going to happen?

IMHO, what's more likely to happen is: You search for a camp stove, and your G+ friend has written a _public_ review of one, and your personalized search results show your friend's review as well. Personally, I would find that quite helpful since I can now contact my friend directly about this, but even if you don't, why not disable personalized results for yourself?

<comment><USER9> That's a quote from "a former G+ product manager". His credibility is beside the point anyway... this was a hypothetical feature mentioned in the article that conveniently illustrated a potential privacy concern.

(To your prediction of how this feature might play out in reality I would say that you are probably right, but also that I don't give two shits about what my friends buy OR about what they publicly review.)

What we know for certain is that Google is aggressively pushing its users onto G+ and that is the real heart of the problem. It's a bait-and-switch. I have no intention of using Google as a social network and I have no guarantees that I will be able to opt out of current or future features. The writing is on the wall -- Google will be social. That upsets some people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Before, 99 % of internet surfers were anonymous. Now, when they browse their facebook intranet, everything they do is logged and recorded. And now, we see the same with Google. I tried to register a youtube account for my foosball association a few days back. It wouldn't let me use a nickname. It had to be a real name with a gender, a google+ account and a gmail. I ended up using my own youtube account. They've asked me about 15 times if I want to use my real name on youtube, I always say no.

</comment><comment><USER12> It is clearly an abuse of monopoly. I am already using GMail, Free google apps, search, android apps review and many other things. If now I have to do the same thing, I am forced to either sign up for Google plus, which also force me to give my complete name along with other personal details, If not I can not use all these services. What a strange, is it not a abuse of monopoly? I dont want to give my personal details, is it not my right? Why google is forcing me to do so? Why I cant keep using android review withoug using Google plus?

</comment><comment><USER13> Is it just me or is there a recent surge of G+ stuff here? Almost seems systematic. Some free books post with the G+ book, some Facebook "bashing" posted on G+ now this.

Maybe I'm just paranoid but it smells like a targeted campaign :P

<comment><USER14> Targeted by who? The coverage of G+ seems to be almost consistently negative.

<comment><USER15> Maybe some social-media marketers have taken _"any publicity is good publicity"_ a little too seriously and decided that bashing G+ is easier than praising it. ;)

<comment><USER16> Ah, maybe they hired the same advertising firm as the IE team then. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD9FAOPBiDk>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow. So much anger from people here just for Google asking to create a G+ profile.

Is it really that bad?

Google is a free service that we reap a lot of benefits from. We have a lot of software engineers here. Google is indispensable followed by Stack Overflow. I highly doubt we'd be able to finish an app if Google goes down.

What's a couple of minutes to set up one?

We know that Google+ is also a way for Google to more accurately target ads. Advertising is the main source of revenue. If Google can't make enough money off advertising, it would have to shut some services down.

This is why I don't use AdBlock. If a free site is useful enough that I visit it regularly, I'll let them serve me ads.

<comment><USER18> Wow. So much lack of understanding about what the issue is.

I don't want my search results, the YouTube videos I watch, my mail or ANY of my Google activity to be made available either to my friends or to the general public.

With a normal Google account I could say this with certainty. But given their behaviour recently I couldn't say the same thing with a Google+ account.

<comment><USER17> Can you show me something that Google shared publicly (or your friends) that you didn't do yourself?

I have a Google+ account. Posts show up on my profile because I shared it publicly myself.

None of my search results, YouTube views, Email are public.

(Also it's stupid for me to reply to you given your history. But your reply is just not based on any facts.

<comment><USER19> Google Buzz[1].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz#Privacy>

<comment><USER9> Well played.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> At some point Google should insert a reference to every user who has signed up on any google property into their google+ user db. At least then we will have one huge news day about how "well" google+ is doing and that will be the end of this farce.

 _The impetus for such integration comes from the top: Google Chief Executive Larry Page has sought more aggressive measures to get people to use Google+, two people familiar with the matter say._

That is extremely telling about Google. Taken positively, it means the founder has bet the company on social. Taken negatively, it means google's biggest bet is so far a spammy and largely disliked product.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you've activated your Google+ profile in any way, Picasa will now detect this and will no longer offer to upload photos to PicasaWeb, only to Google+. I believe the back end may be the same, but the sharing UI and access control is different.

<comment><USER22> The backend is indeed the same (same API), only the UI is different. You can access the old UI at <https://picasaweb.google.com/home>

<comment><USER21> You can access the PicasaWeb website, but if you have G+ enabled, you won't be able to use the Picasa desktop app to add new PicasaWeb albums, it will now only upload to G+.

Free service, you get what you pay for, etc., but this odd cascading change is the kind of thing that drives my (70+) parents crazy, and they take note of the fact that it was Google that broke the thing they were comfortable using.

<comment><USER23> I work on the Photos backend team at Google.

Picasaweb and Google+ use the same back-end. The back-end makes no distinction between albums created in Picasaweb and albums created in G+. Having an option in Picasa desktop client to control whether an album is created in Picasaweb or Google+ would be nonsensical.

I just tried creating an album in Picasa desktop client. I clicked on "Sync to web" and the album was uploaded and was available from both Picasaweb and in G+ Photos with identical functionality.

I tried creating a second album, but instead of turning on "sync to web" I clicked on the "Share your album on G+" button. I 'shared' the album with myself. The resulting album is available in either Picasaweb or G+.

<comment><USER24> Hey ... I think I already know the answers to these questions, but I thought I would ask anyway:

1) Any upgrades the Picasa Web interface planned? 2) Why when I search for tags it shows everyone's photos by default? 3) Why do tag searches not return all photos that are tagged with the term?

Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> All the more so when you're required to have a Gmail account to activate android devices.

Tying indeed. DOJ?

<comment><USER26> This is simply not true.

<comment><USER25> Um. It most certainly is for at least some vendor-supplied Android builds, in my experience.

It may not be necessary for _all_ Android activations (particularly CyanogenMod builds), but there are phones for which this is at the very least a practical, if not essential, requirement.

<comment><USER26> On my Nexus 4 and 7 you can answer that you don't have a google account and it will allow you to set it up without one, this has been the case on every Android distribution I've seen. I don't think that Google or AOSP builds have ever required a google account and it's not really fair to blame them if a particular vendor does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I absolutely HATE the fact that google forces me to have a profile on Google+, but Google Hangout is so compelling that I've done it anyways.

I am hoping that Google bumps up security and visibility preferences for Google+ profiles in 2013.

<comment><USER28> > I am hoping that Google bumps up security and visibility preferences for > Google+ profiles in 2013.

What options are you wanting? In my experience Google+ is much more upfront about what gets shared to who than other social networks (especially Facebook). It's based around Circles and that's _all_ about limiting who sees what.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I really don't feel the pressure yet. The article is certainly right in that Google seems to try hard - it's just that I couldn't be ar.. - erm - <USER2> to resurrect my dormant, blocked ('real name..') G+ account.

What do I lose, even at this point?

\- Youtube comments? That medium is 'watch only' for a long time already. Reading the comments hurts and was never funny or interesting. Writing comments didn't even cross my mind unless it's 4am and I had a beer or two too many.

\- "Play" store reviews: That thing went basically into the direction of Youtube and was full of people that had no clue but liked to post stuff.

(Before anyone claims that G+ will make this better and so-called "real names" will fix that: Yeah, right. See HN. Twitter. Every other forum under the sun. I don't buy it)

Hangouts might be cool, but I couldn't care less about hangouts without people to hang out with. Since I never really joined G+ yet, this is a chicken and egg problem (public hangouts? Naah, not for me, I prefer text over video for most content). No G+ account, no G+ contacts, no need for that feature, period.

The only one time I felt I'm missing out was when my local Ingress resistance started organizing raids on G+. I'm mostly kidding, of course.

So, back to the point of the article: I see that they are trying really, really hard to sell G+ to the masses and integrate it everywhere. What I'd like to understand is: Do others feel that it works? That there really is 'no avoiding' G+?

I disagree.

</comment><comment><USER30> I have multiple Google accounts, from well before they required telephone authentication, and use multiple Google services (gmail, youtube, search primarily) but I do _not_ have any Google+ accounts.

I know this for certain because if I actively try to access Google+ from any of the Google services, it asks me to first create one.

I have also never tried to change any Google service or access it differently so as to avoid Google+ account creation.

So, clearly, _Google+ can be avoided_ , if you never had it.

That said, I do browse with scripting disabled (Google is not trusted by default and neither gmail, youtube or search require it) and I only log into Google services from trusted, i.e. personally owned, devices. I can read posts on plus.google.com with this configuration. I have also never given my real name to an online service account, except at the time of individual payments - financial information always claims among the highest protections of laws.

In my opinion, I think Google has been very fair with people who are only interested in access to their individual services, especially those that well predate Google+, without being bloated or forced away by the rest of their ever widening ecosystem.

Compared to Facebook and even Microsoft, Google is angelic in terms of access, privacy and service encapsulation considerations. I cannot compare to Apple since I only use them for music purchases.

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't see how using google+ to add reviews results in using google plus to post. In other words, this integration might show an increase in ridiculous stats google is posting, but it doesn't really increase amount of time user spends on the actual site (so he doesn't read newsfeed). Thus any comparison with facebook stats is not possible.

Disclaimer: I don't use either social network, but in their stats facebook will consider me an inactive user and google will consider me an active user.

</comment><comment><USER32> _Research firm comScore Inc. a year ago estimated that Google+ users spent an average of three minutes on the site each month, versus more than 400 minutes for the average Facebook user. In the U.S., Google+ had nearly 28.7 million unique visitors through PCs in October—well below Facebook's 149 million, comScore says. Those numbers don't include mobile-device users._

</comment><comment><USER33> I still prefer Google+ to App.net.

</comment><comment><USER34> Obvious comparison but interesting how close this feels to the DOJ hitting MSFT over the head for bundling:

"The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system . . . Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers." (1)

When does leveraging a platform flip from good business to unfair competition?

(1) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>

<comment><USER35> _When does leveraging a platform flip from good business to unfair competition?_

The moment you gain monopoly status in one market and attempt to leverage that status in another. Until then, happy bundling! Read the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law docs from that case. They make it pretty clear.

<http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm>

<http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm>

<comment><USER36> I don't think that's the right thing to be looking at. That's the district court, which wouldn't be binding anyway, and if I remember correctly the appellate court had some pretty harsh things to say about the district court's opinion in that case. (As in, start over and try again, although the trying again never actually happened because at that point Microsoft decided to settle.)

<comment><USER35> It's my understanding of that it was Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's interview(s) with the press (an embargoed activity) while he was still hearing the case that were at issue (as well as some issues about liability for remedies). They did not have issues with his application of the Sherman Antitrust Act or relevant precedent, though.

From Wikipedia: "...the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability."

...and then Bush replaced Clinton in the White House, after which the DoJ dropped the case.

So I think I still have a good answer for aresant's question.

<comment><USER36> >They did not have issues with his application of the Sherman Antitrust Act or relevant precedent, though.

I think they did. I'll give you a quote from the actual appellate opinion: "To establish a dangerous probability of success, plaintiffs must as a threshold matter show that the browser market can be monopolized, i.e., that a hypothetical monopolist in that market could enjoy market power. This, in turn, requires plaintiffs (1) to define the relevant market and (2) to demonstrate that substantial barriers to entry protect that market. Because plaintiffs have not carried their burden on either prong, we reverse without remand."

Naturally there is a context to that (and they didn't reverse everything the district court did, but some things) and you're invited to read the entire opinion if you're interested.[1] Incidentally, if there is one thing I've found Wikipedia to be _regularly_ wrong or incomplete about, it's the content of court opinions.

Moreover, findings of fact are a distinct thing from conclusions of law. "Findings of fact" are usually decided by juries, but sometimes by trial judges when there is no jury, and it means deciding what actually happened, not deciding what the law is. For example, a finding of fact might be whether Microsoft did actually pressure OEMs not to bundle Netscape, but not whether or not having done that would be a violation of the antitrust laws, which would be a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact.

(I should point out that we're having a nice theoretical discussion here and that this is not legal advice, and if you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.)

[1] Here is one freely available copy of the appellate opinion I found through Google: <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/msft_ruling.html>

<comment><USER35> Thank you for posting that link. It made for good reading over my morning coffee.

While I am not a lawyer either, my reading is that you have quoted from a section of the document pertaining to a claimed violation (in the Conclusions of Law) that are with regard to § 2 of the Sherman act (monopoly maintenace), whereas aresant's question is with respect to product tying, which is a § 1 violation, which was merely remanded – and, eventually, dropped.

<comment><USER36> >While I am not a lawyer either, my reading is that you have quoted from a section of the document pertaining to a claimed violation (in the Conclusions of Law) that are with regard to § 2 of the Sherman act (monopoly maintenace), whereas aresant's question is with respect to product tying, which is a § 1 violation, which was merely remanded – and, eventually, dropped.

OK sure. And "remand" means the trial judge made mistakes and has to try again, not that they did everything right. When they do substantially everything right it will say "affirmed" and then that part of the case is over (or gets appealed to a higher court instead of going back down). And as you already pointed out, the case being settled/dropped probably had a lot more to do with politics and the incoming Bush administration than anything to do with the court system or the law or whether the original district judge was right or wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Google+ _should_ be Google, in the same way Gmail and Google Talk are just the same Google accounts. Someone said here today how he found Hangouts complicated on mobile, because it wasn't well integrated into the OS, the way Facetime is. And that's exactly why Google+ needs to become synonymous with a Google account. Apple allows you do use any and all of their services with your itunes account, from iCloud to payments, doesn't it?

You don't have to use it, just like people don't have to use all of Apple's services, and as long as they are not too in-your-face about it.

<comment><USER38> > and as long as they are not too in-your-face about it

"In-your-face" such as prompting me with a page-modal dialog every time I log into YouTube, demanding that I create a G+ account, and if I say "no" actually requiring a _reason_ before the dialog will go away? I currently work around it by logging in, closing the tab when the dialog comes up, and opening a new tab.

<comment><USER26> I agree it's horrible, but I gave them a BS reason and that modal has gone away and never come back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Google accounts have long come with public profiles. How is an empty Google+ profile different?

<comment><USER9> It's not just about having a profile or not. Google seems to be changing services to require G+.

For example, you can no longer comment on YouTube or write a review in the Play store without a G+ profile (or at least I can't). This means that activity in those Google properties is no longer pseudonymous. That is very unappealing to some.

<comment><USER28> > For example, you can no longer comment on YouTube or write a review in the > Play store without a G+ profile (or at least I can't). This means that > activity in those Google properties is no longer pseudonymous. That is very > unappealing to some.

From Google's point of view here there is only gain--YouTube comments are some of the lowest form of internet communication to be found. App reviews are not much better. Requiring people to have some sort of profile is not going to lower the quality of reviews, it will only limit their quantity (which is not the lacking factor).

<comment><USER40> Google currently offers YouTube users the option of either using their G+ profile or a YouTube profile.

I tried the G+ profile option for a while, but I didn't really like it. The first time I posted something publicly, people started commenting on my Google+ posts, apparently upset because they did not get the joke I made. Someone in the YouTube comments looked up my profile, figured out where I lived, and threatened to come to "BrookLine New York" to adjust my viewpoint. I found it hilarious but most people would probably be scared.

I switched back to using a real-name-inspired nickname. You blend in better and people won't bother you except in comment replies, which you can easily ignore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think it was clear long ago that Google+ is just Google, or at least it's what Google thinks their future is. It's easy enough to avoid Google+, though: just stop using Google products and services. There are plenty of great alternatives available.

<comment><USER42> do you have a suggestion for a good email alternative?

<comment><USER41> I've been using Rackspace hosted email (actually was webmail.us before being bought) with my own domain name for over 8 years and my experience has been nothing but excellent. It's $2/month/mailbox now, but unfortunately they now have a $10/month account minimum, so not a good option if you just need one mailbox.

[http://www.rackspace.com/apps/email_hosting/rackspace_email/...](http://www.rackspace.com/apps/email_hosting/rackspace_email/?MMP=loginpg_hosted_email)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The only part of G+ which i absolutely love is hangouts. Still think everything else is a privacy concern. The strange thing is that i am witnessing a significant migration of non-geeks to G+ from Facebook. I didn't think i'd see the day. I guess people are picking lesser of two evils.

</comment><comment><USER44> Google+ whatever, the writing in this article is really bad. There are so many confusing pronouns, redundant sentences, and poorly integrated quotes that I had a hard time making it through the article. Whats up wsj?

</comment><comment><USER45> Google's growing G+ surveillance is a worry. This is why after watching the 29C3 keynote (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNsePZj_Yks>) and whistleblower panel (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDM3MqHln8U>) a couple of days ago I blocked all the main google domains (mail, maps, G+, accounts, picasa, etc.) via /etc/hosts and committed to only accessing Gmail via Tor (<https://www.torproject.org/>). Facebook I already deleted and block via AdBlockPlus (though I now recommend <http://trueblockplus.org/>), but G+ is harder and more insidious to stay free of. After a few days of use, I am quite happy with my new strategy: keep email (or anything personally identifying, like banking) in a different and anonymized browser. Keep everything else in a general browser that never sees you identified.

Edit: add URLs, TrueBlockPlus reference.

<comment><USER46> Why not just use IMAP for gmail access?

<comment><USER47> If you are going to use IMAP, why would you use gmail at all?

Gmail's main selling point is the excellent web-interface, not the way the mail-store works well with IMAP.

<comment><USER48> >If you are going to use IMAP, why would you use gmail at all?

As an alternate email address, for any number of a variety of reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> That was a really effective ad for, e.g., Rackspace's hosted email service.

<comment><USER50> Which I use at my company and have nothing but praise for. But who is going to take an pseudononymous (if this isn't a word it should be) review into account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'd use google plus more if the mobile app wasn't a flaming turd.

</comment><comment><USER52> plus.google.com is blocked at my employer.

</comment><comment><USER53> Yeah, no shit! I'm not quite sure what is the point of that article, because it's fairly obvious that the main reason for which Plus was conceived is to be the uniform identity provider for commenting, reviewing, and overall communicating throughout Google's services.

At the time Google lacked the pictured user profiles that every other app seemed to have and so Google Plus was born.

I think that the discrete social network is secondary and the competition with Facebook is constantly being overplayed by the media as the reason for this social play.

The author just seems oddly surprised that G+ is doing what it's supposed to do.

<comment><USER18> Google+ is a social network. The only person who thinks otherwise is you:

<http://plus.google.com>

And the reason Google+ is being integrated everywhere is because it is the only way they see themselves gaining traction against Facebook. Which right now is their primary online competitor for the almighty advertising dollar.

<comment><USER54> > Google+ is a social network. The only person who thinks otherwise is you:

Vic Gundotra disagrees.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/10/vic-gundotra- google...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/10/vic-gundotra-google- plus_n_1336601.html)

<http://mashable.com/2012/06/29/google-plus-problem/>

<comment><USER18> Well Vic better update the website then. Because a site that mentions "share the right things with the right people" and then has games, photos, events and videos sure sounds pretty similar to Facebook to me.

You don't think he's just trying to move the goalpost to prevent one-to-one comparisons with Facebook since you know they aren't doing so well ?

<comment><USER55> I'm not going to argue that Google+ doesn't fit some definition of "social network". But what's up with the snarky comments? How about sticking to an argument, instead of making comments like "The only person who thinks otherwise is you", which isn't even true?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> It's really depressing to see the "Don't be Evil" company get down in the mud because they're afraid of some fly-by-night swindlers who nobody will remember in five years.

I'm not giving you my name and face, Google, no matter how much I used to love you.

<comment><USER57> >"some fly-by-night swindlers who nobody will remember in five years"

People have been saying this for the last 5 years.

I think it's time to reiterate a point that was made here a couple days ago that I think really outlines the reason that Facebook WILL be around for a while.

The comment that I'm referring to suggested that there's a "point-of-no- return" for a service where people are too deeply invested in it for any competing service to have a REAL fighting chance. That point of no return is when you have grandmas and grandpas, as well as little kids, and non-tech- savvy folks in general using the service (in this case FB) consistently and constantly.

To give you a personal example, my parents are the LAST people who I would expect to create a Facebook account. They are very technically unsavvy, but on top of that they're pretty skeptical people too. However, they finally got a Facebook account, and I think that highlights why Facebook WILL be around for many more years.

If you're going to use Myspace as an example, then don't, because Myspace NEVER reached the tipping point of Grandmas and Grandpas trying to use it. I think this goes for any service, not just a social network like Facebook. Take the iPhone and iPad for example. Same thing with that. You have grandmas, grandpas, and little children using iOS, so you know it's ingrained across multiple generations.

Now I'm not saying I'm 100% sure they're a rock-solid company, but I don't think people give them enough credit. It's far more popular to say "oh they'll be gone in a few years" than to actually understand and analyze the situation.

<comment><USER56> Phooey, Facebook is at this point just a big Lebron James charging down the court and intimidating everybody in it's way. People will leave as soon as it's convenient because they _viscerally hate it_.

The Onion told me so: [http://www.theonion.com/articles/number-of-users-who- actuall...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/number-of-users-who-actually- enjoy-facebook-down-t,29503/)

<comment><USER57> HAHA! I love the Onion and that article was actually pretty well written, loved the twist at the end.

Those 4 people represent the reasons that I actually like FB. I really just like seeing what other people are up to in their lives as well as staying in touch with the people who are closest to me day-to-day. It's really that simple.

NOT to suggest that FB doesn't have it's issues or that we should take any pressure off the company, but at the end of the day, most of the little issues are easy to ignore, and it just becomes a useful tool that I like using.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Garden: Instacart's Physical Staging Environment - <AUTHOR> https://tech.instacart.com/the-garden-instacarts-physical-staging-environment-7204fd063616 <comment><USER2> Off topic, but I wanted to highlight the open source contributions that Instacart have made. Have a look at all the good stuff at [https://github.com/ankane](https://github.com/ankane) \- chartkick, ahoy, pghero, searchkick, blazer and more.

Edit: should also have linked to [https://www.instacart.com/opensource](https://www.instacart.com/opensource)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the link! pghero and chartkick look very useful!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Those are fairly common. Most big retailers have a test store. Some are just for in-house use, and some have real customers.

<comment><USER5> Michael Drexler gave the same advice to Steve Jobs before they opened their first Apple Store. They instantly realized they got the whole thing wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's fancy! Thanks for sharing!</comment>


Obsession - <AUTHOR> http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/06/11/obsession/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEndeavour+%28The+Endeavour%29 <comment><USER2> Please do not post links with utm junk in the URL. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER3> wow a 3 paragraphs article make it top on hacker news...

Think I need a more underground source of articles now, nothing interesting in that article beside some irks about publishing "worthless" scientific paper

</comment><comment><USER4> Obsessive thought in a psychological sense is often a symptom of anxiety. The intense focus of the obsession may be completely unrelated to the source of anxiety. Often a compulsive behavior provides relief for the anxiety, without, of course, ever addressing the root anxiety.

<comment><USER5> So how does one address the root anxiety?

<comment><USER6> By adressing not the anxiety itself but the root _of_ anxiety. For minor problems it should suffice. I strongly suggest to reach for professionnal help though if anxiety is delibitating in any way. Be very cautious with internet advice and the self-help dev. movement.

<comment><USER7> > By adressing not the anxiety itself but the root of anxiety.

It is better to address anxiety itself because then one does not have to address the root of each and every anxiety that props up.

Note that I wrote "anxiety" and not "the anxiety".

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working in the long term for every manifestation of anxiety (not talking OCD here).

Moreover, you'll get different burst of anxiety that are going to pile up, even if you adress them individually but with the same method ; you'll be mentally exhausted way sooner and way more often than if you had worked on the root.

Of course if the _root_ is one of the 80's wave of imaginary parental incest abuses it's a different matter.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Metro Seattle home prices falling at fastest rate in U.S - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/metro-seattle-home-prices-falling-at-fastest-rate-in-u-s <comment><USER2> Am I misunderstanding the graph in the article? My understanding is that the graph is showing that home prices are still rising, but only at an 8.4% increase between Sep 2017 and Sep 2018 (the rate of increase has just decreased.) If so, this seems incredibly misleading.

<comment><USER3> Yes, you are misunderstanding it: the house prices are 8.4 higher than in Sep 2017, BUT, they are lower than in, say, Jun 2018. So it is not just "rate of increase has decreased", the absolute values are lower than a few months ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Home prices, not condos. Condos are still going up.</comment>


Berlin court used Windows 95, hit by virus, now uses typewriters&fax (German) - <AUTHOR> https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/experten-warnten-schon-2017-it-katastrophe-am-berliner-kammergericht-kam-mit-ansage/25163810.html <comment><AUTHOR> "Gamrith" comments in Tagesspiegel, and I think (s)he makes an accurate analysis of judicial behaviour which applies not only to Berlin and not only to Germany.

 _The problem lies in the way the judiciary sees itself and its work, and not just in Berlin. Every time you come to the judges and prosecutors with the subject of IT security and the associated user care obligations, they wave the Constitution and refer to the judiciary independence. Every time you point out that old applications have to be replaced, it is pointed out that changes in form and procedures can neither be desired nor tolerated by the employees.

IT is not a core competence of the administration, and especially not the judiciary with its absolutely obsolete professional mindset. In particular, one does not really understand that as a part of an integrated system in which the user and the applications work together, they also have duties that they must perform. They always point at the IT or IT service providers, and shy away from responsibility.

AULAK is not the only critical specialist procedure in the Berlin judiciary that needs to be renewed. However, the judiciary shies away from the costs and expenses that one would have to invest here. In particular, in such projects, any judges and prosecutors are "voluntarily" ordered as project managers, and staff who have no idea or real interest in the subject would just like to implement existing paper-based processes 1:1 in software. That the IT offers other possibilities is then always dismissed with the reference to the "laws".

Smentek and the ITDZ are not collecting any prestige from their role in the process, but the plight of the Supreme Court is homemade and is mainly due to the inability of the judiciary to renew._

<comment><USER2> Trying to see this from the users' perspective, why does me being secure require a completely different UI? Why can't all the security patches for the latest version of Windows be ported back into _my_ version instead of me having to learn a new operating system?

This is the cost of the tech industry's obsession with constantly fiddling with the UI.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the fundamental thing is that keeping up to date involves both user interfaces & operating system versions as well as work processes and interfaces. You cannot develop just one of them without considering the other, and because the system needs to work as a common process with unified working methods and tools, it means that everyone needs to adapt to both.

Yes, there is too much fiddling with the UI in the industry, but continuing to use 1990's operating systems without updates, just because people don't want to change their ways of working... that is not sensible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Short recap for non German speakers.

\- Berlin (city/state) court was running on Win 95.

\- Trojan infected their whole network. Now they disconnected all PC's from the internet. They run on phones and faxes now.

\- Various consultancies (Accenture e.a.) warned them the situation was critical in 2017.

<comment><USER4> >> Trojan infected their whole network. Now they disconnected all PC's from the internet. They run on phones and faxes now.

The ol' Galactica strategy

<comment><USER5> Admiral Adama had a point.

<comment><USER6> Though using that analogy Madame Airlock (MS Merkel) would had a few people spaced :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Another article mentioning the use of faxes now that the court is disconnected from network: [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/anhoerung-zu-trojaner- ang...](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/anhoerung-zu-trojaner-angriff- kammergericht-baut-den-notbetrieb-aus/25172194.html)

Summary: Berlins Court of Appeals (Kammergericht) kept using Windows 95, even though the maintenance of this OS ended in 2001.

Elsewhere, it is mentioned, that the court was hit by Emotet malware.

Some judges have stored all their documents in the official system and have now lost them, and they have literally no access to their past work except on paper printouts, if they have any. Some other judges did not obey rules and stored their documents also on USB sticks; they now do have some back-ups.

(Google Translate works reasonably well for German-English.)

<comment><USER7> Very surprising that Emotet runs on Win95.

<comment><USER8> Same here. Also the USB part was mentioned in several news outlets. Iirc, Win95 had no USB support. So it either was only parts of the system that ran in it, or something got messed up during reporting. Because I faintly remember an earlier report that only mentioned Word 95, which would make a little more sense as that should run on more recent versions of Windows.

<comment><AUTHOR> All computers probably are not running Windows 95, many are newer. But I understood the point here is that judges take files home (maybe using floppies?) and use their own computers to work on them. And when at home, they are not supposed to take local backups, but some did it anyway.

It's also suspected that the infection of malware came via a private computer handling the files.

Again, Google Translate does a decent job:

 _Infection may be through private computers

Many of them have in the past, also because of the often outdated service computers, taken office data on storage media such as USB sticks home and worked there in the home office. The fear of having infected the private computer with the virus is great - and apparently justified. The Federal Office for Information Security advises in case of infection with the Emotet virus to a reorganization of the affected computer. Current information about the virus further states: "Emotet is considered one of the biggest threats of malware worldwide."_

[https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/schadsoftware-im- berliner...](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/schadsoftware-im-berliner- kammergericht-trojaner-angriff-deutlich-schwerer-als-gedacht/25092566.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This whole thing is sadly "typically Berlin". No hard, scientific proof for that but it is extremely unsurprising when you have some experience with Berlin bureaucracy.

<comment><USER9> I recently visited a hospital in Berlin. I ended up next to a screen with a live ECG from someone in another room. This alone seemed slightly questionable, both due to privacy reasons and because it ran in some weird modified Internet Explorer.

Then the ECG was interrupted by Windows Update.

<comment><USER3> Weirdly enough, Germany in general is very very privacy conscious. In Berlin even more, due to DDR hangover.

<comment><USER10> Yet they still have people register their religion choice. Ostensibly it's because of taxes, but given Germany's history, a government list of everyone and their religion can't be good. Germans care about privacy, but they have seemingly a foolhardy trust of government.

<comment><USER11> > _" Yet they still have people register their religion choice. Ostensibly > it's because of taxes"_

Stupid question maybe, but do Germans actually comply with that law? Even the ostensible justification seems weird; why should religious beliefs be relevant to taxes owed?

<comment><USER12> Because the state helpfully pulls in "membership fees" for the churches through the tax system. Really stupid system, but little political will to get rid of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> One may call it stupid, but such a system, particularly collecting the membership dues for the Lutheran protestant churches, is in place in very many of the most-advanced nations in the world with highest rankings of human development, press freedom, strong welfare state, good public health and so on.

Is that a coincidence? I think it is not, although it is obvious that the mechanism doesn't work like "start collecting membership dues for Lutherans and you'll have a great welfare state". Rather, it's the current outcome of a long historical development.

<comment><USER6> I think you mean guilt from ww2 and also some of the sectarian episodes in Germanys Past - Bismarck locking up a large proportion of the Catholic clergy is one example not well known

<comment><AUTHOR> I think WW2 is just a passing episode in this development, as different countries fared differently in the war but this long-standing development has ended in rather similar outcomes. Overall, it's that the secular society picked up from the administration structures and practices built by (mostly Protestant) churches.

WW2 guilt did not stop Austria from applying this law for collecting church dues (for the Catholic church) after WW2, even if the practice was in fact brought to statute books by Adolf Hitler in 1939.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Update:

Berlin court used typewriters & fax, hit by rust and lack of paper, now uses cuneiform & clay tablets.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's mindblowing how one getting behind even 2 years in the general ecosystem and the technological progress is basically out of the job market, yet people responsible for the functioning of the society can completely ignore all these and remain in their positions of power and authority.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hahaha, I am glad it finally hit them. Hopefully many more official institutions including ticket selling machines using old Windows will get hit. Maybe one day they will learn, that using proprietary software (even less outdated software)is not suitable for official institutions financed by the tax payers.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder if theres an inflection point where using older operating systems cause you to be more resilient to viruses - presumably because malicious software is written targetting more modern stacks

<comment><USER17> Might be true for other platforms but Microsoft's laser focus on backward compatibility probably helps viruses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's surprising that it took until 2017 for "Fachleute" (experts) to warn the city about the situation. Wouldn't one expect the same advice to be given ever since 2001 when Windows 95 support ended?

<comment><USER19> They probably got the warning every year every day informally, they got it formally at least once a year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> related article (also German) on heise, a more technical publication than tagesspiegel: [https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Emotet-Das-Faxen- am-...](https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Emotet-Das-Faxen-am-Berliner- Kammergericht-hat-hoffentlich-bald-ein-Ende-4572843.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> So how do you write fire-and-forget systems? Typewriters can't become hopelessly insecure by leaving the typewriter sit on a shelf for a year. On the other hand, you can't leave a Linux box unattended for more than a couple months before it's hopelessly insecure. Is the solution unikernels, or what? I think we'll have to find ways to make software that stands the passage of time a bit more. I feel like it's really hard to build software that survives on its own for even a tiny bit of time. Are we in an era that will leave no usable artifact behind?

<comment><USER6> They can be insecure if you don't dispose of your carbon papers properly

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's amazing you can still be productive with Windows 95 in 2019. It shows you how great it was. Imagine getting anything done with Mac OS 7.6, which was current in 1995.

We simply didn't know what dangers lie in connected computers back then, so it's no wonder it would be vulnerable to attack. Still, you'd think the sheer age of it would protect it (who's still attacking Windows 95?) and it probably did keep them safe for some time.

<comment><USER23> > Imagine getting anything done with Mac OS 7.6, which was current in 1995.

C:\ONGRTLNS.W95

Win95 = Mac '84

<comment><USER22> I was at the Windows 95 Launch Event (hosted by Jay Leno!) and we saw Apple driving "billboard" trucks around with this message. I was sad/pathetic. Windows 95 had real virtual memory, processes with protected memory space, and file names up to 260 charaters (vs Mac's 32 character limit back then.)

If Steve Jobs didn't come back and throw away MacOS to make a new one based on NeXT, they would have been quite dead today.

<comment><USER23> I was at MacWorld '95 -- just before Windows 95's release -- and saw lots of T-shirts with those slogans. You're right. Technology-wise even cruddy old Windows 95 was superior. But Apple had a hardcore base of true believers (Bungie, for instance, was a Mac-only and then a Mac-first shop) and _those_ were their marketing audience. Part of the dogma was that beauty and ease of use came before _all_ other concerns, and Mac was indeed beautiful and easy to use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I can't see fax or typewriters being mentioned in this article at all, they only talk about encrypted usb drives from what I can see.

Where does this headline come from?

<comment><USER3> It's linked in the first paragraph. Article in the same magazine [https://m.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/nach-trojaner-attacke-am- ka...](https://m.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/nach-trojaner-attacke-am- kammergericht-richter-muessen-auf-fax-geraete-ausweichen/25132698.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think it is important to consider that possibly computers are not the optimum solution for everything

</comment><comment><USER26> Don't fax machines operate over phone lines though? Should be stupid easy to tap into. Not great for sensitive court docs.

Also, by removing digital docs, you make it much harder for those with visual impairments to access such documents.

</comment><comment><USER27> Why didn't they switch to ArcaOS (modern OS/2)?</comment>


Hide Firefox - <AUTHOR> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48218471/how-to-run-firefox-without-a-window <comment><USER2> For what purpose specifically (not theoretically) do you find this interesting?

Your username is "bitcoindev", so I assume you're trying to find a way to secretly wrap malware around Firefox in order to mine coins using headless mode while the user blames Firefox for being slow.

Duly reported to our security folks, but it's comforting to see that we already prohibit this.</comment>


Ask HN: LXC container inside a VM : is it good for scalability? - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
Who am I ?
I'm a french "studentrepeneur", doing distance studies in Computer Science & Business, and working on my companies during the day.
What is my problem ? (/!\ Test conditions, not in production /!\)
I have implemented an hybrid private/public cloud (using OpenStack & OpenNebula) with AMI provisioning. As such, I can use by default my own dedicated servers, then scale up with Amazon EC2 instances if I get too much charge on my private instances. As such, I have one pool of VM by function : load balancer, one pool for webserver , one pool for proxy, one for DBB, and so forth ... I use a mix of different technologies, PHP, Python, and I'm even thinking of trying Go. I use Nginx as reverse proxy and as webserver.
Now, all the domains are grouped ( clusterized) together, so they are VM agnostic : I can add as much instance as I want, it will always be presented to the domain as just one big resourceful physical server, not many VM.
What I would like to do now is to add more security  by putting each domain in a LXC container. But I wonder, if I include container, won't it break my scalability model ? If yes, should I use a totally different model ? Like, not using a clusterized model but rather a lot of different instances with one per domain ? As it's in test and not in production, I can still break everything ;).
Yann <comment><USER2> This is a pretty common thing if you want to get absolute separation for applications within a single (large) vm and is used extensively in the PaaS world. Have a look at cloudfoundry (look on github). This is how it manages containers for each application. Heroku, dotCloud and others seems to follow similar approaches.

Long answer short, a lxc container would look like a self-contained vm to everything outside and from within (except for the controlling vm). You can go with the existing model but I would recommend using one container per application/service. Also have a look at: <https://github.com/dotcloud/docker>

<comment><AUTHOR> When you say "one container per application/service", you mean I should use

\- one container = one domain ? with www.example.com, have one container for www.example1.com with all the services included (webserver_example1, database_example1,...) in one container ? and so forth with www.example2.com, ...

\- one container = one service ? have a VM_DB for all the database with container1 = database_example1, container2 = database_example2, ... have a VM_WebServer with container1 = webserver_example1, ... ?

which approach work the best if i keep adding more and more VM (with container inside this VM) ??

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> OK, after having read the whole night, I think I will go with OpenShift to have Paas on top of the OpenStack Iaas.

This kind of thing looks like what I want to have : <https://www.openshift.com/wiki/architecture-overview>

Moreover, when I will have other Saas needs, looks like it will be more easy to deploy.

Y</comment>


Insecure by default – hijacking websites that use target="_blank" - <AUTHOR> http://devproving.com/blank-hijack/ <comment><USER2> Previous discussion on the same vulnerability [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631292)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a nice demonstration, although I feel like it would be more useful to show that it works across domains (Which IMHO is the most important part).

<comment><USER4> Does it actually work cross domain? That would really surprise me.

Edit: if I understand correctly this only allows the opened page to navigate the opening page; it does not allow it to do anything else to the opener. Is that correct?

<comment><USER5> I don't know about the cross-domain case but on the same "domain" (file: protocol) I used the following two HTML files

link.html:

        Click

opener.html:

and sure enough the link was changed. If this works cross-domain, this is kind of a big deal, isn't it?

<comment><USER3> See this comment for a cross-domain demo: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631810](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631810)

It's a fairly big deal, but not much is being done about it on the browser side of things. It can only really be used for phishing style attacks.

<comment><USER6> you cannot access the opener's document as aji's example does cross origin

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I didn't read the comment carefully enough.

I assumed we were still talking about window.opener.location (which can be modified across domains)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> AFAIK, Many (pirate) websites now use this technique to hijack the previous tab and show ads even if you have an adblocker, and open their links in new tabs always.

</comment><comment><USER8> Can anyone explain how this works?

<comment><USER9> The problem is that a document in a window opened by a link with target="_blank" unexpectedly has a reference to the document that contains the link, using the window.opener property.

This property has limited functionality but one of the things that are allowed is redirecting the page to something else which is kind of unexpected.

The problem is not websites that use target="_blank", it's browsers that refuse to fix this behavior because of some ill-defined compatibility issue that appears to exist mostly in the heads of developers who don't want to work on a fix.</comment></comment>


Macminicolo merging with MacStadium - <AUTHOR> https://macminicolo.net/blog/files/Some-changes-here-at-Macminicolo.html <comment><USER2> Both of our teams at MacStadium and Macminicolo are looking forward to the new opportunities this offers. That's a fairly vague statement but isn't that what everyone says in these moments?

Here's a press release we just released with a bit more info: [http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/macstadium- secures-n...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/macstadium-secures-new- iaas-credit-line-from-silicon-valley-bank-closes-strategic-acquisition-of- macminicolo-300246898.html?tc=portal_CAP)

We'll also both be sharing more info in the next few weeks on both[1] our websites[2]. Another vague statement, but true nonetheless.

Obvious disclosure: I work at MacStadium.

[1]: [https://macminicolo.net/blog/](https://macminicolo.net/blog/)

[2]: [https://macstadium.com/blog/](https://macstadium.com/blog/)</comment>


Why you can't use nuclear weapons to destroy a hurricane - <AUTHOR> http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/11/just-nuke-it-noaa-explains-you-cant-just-bomb-a-hurricane/

<comment><USER2> Another way to think of it is that a hurricane is nature's way of transferring heat energy from the lower latitudes to the middle latitudes. One wonders what would happen if we somehow did manage to keep hurricanes from forming, how it might subtly effect the oceans.

Going the other way, hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical disturbances often account for a nontrivial part of an area's rainfall. What happens when we remove that from the system?</comment>


Dash 3: Now Available - <AUTHOR> https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-3

<comment><USER2> Let me preface this by: I love dash and have already bought Dash 3.

> Dash for OS X can now connect to Dash for iOS and use your iOS device as an > external display just for docs. iOS Remotes can be configured in Preferences > > Remote.

This is true IF you pay ANOTHER $10 for the iPhone/iPad app. I'm a little annoyed by this as it touted as a feature on the desktop app without mention that it's not free. I will probably still get the one for iOS but I just don't like what feels a little bait-and-switchy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Dash is great. I bought Dash 2 a few days before Dash 3 was announced. I emailed Bogdan, and he replied within minutes with a licence for Dash 3. That's customer service!</comment>


Ask HN: Growth hacks for math board game company - <AUTHOR> We are helping kids get 20X more math practice through math board games. We have 16 board games and each addresses a separate math skill e.g. addition of 1 digit numbers, division, multiplication etc. We sell directly to parents via Amazon in US, UK, CA and India. We are doing reasonably well (~1 million USD sales). Suggestions for growth levers (online and offline). Happy to share more details <comment><USER2> I guess your page is [http://logicroots.com/](http://logicroots.com/)

I want more details!!!

The first thing I noticed is that you didn't submit any URL, so it was difficult to find it.

I always suggest to write an _interesting_ blog post and submit it to HN. (An _interesting_ blog post is always better than a _lame_ blog post.) I looked for your blog but I couldn't find it. I also looked for some free samples, but I couldn´t find them.

After a few google searches I found them [http://blog.logicroots.com/](http://blog.logicroots.com/) . It's very difficult to find it from your main page, and I guess most people like to see a free sample before committing to buy a real game. (Anyway, most people is using facebook, that have links to your blog.)

I looked at the activities, but they are too directed towards kids, so they don't look suitable for a post in HN. Do you have any more technical post?

Some ideas that I'd like to read. (I think that your kind of post directed to teachers and kids are better for your business, but I want to read more technical post. :) )

* Do you have any live/online version of one of your games? (I'm not 100% sure this is a good idea. Doing good/fun board games is not the same as doing good/fun online games.)

* Where does the x20, x14, xsomething more math came from? How did you measure it? Did you make any experiment to measure the improvement in math abilities comparing it to more traditional methods?

* Do you have any testimonials?

* How do you do all the shipping an handling? Look at the post from bemmu from Candy Japan for ideas: [https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=candyjapan.com](https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=candyjapan.com)

* Are you selling to parents or schools? patio11 said it was very difficult to sell to schools, and I guess it's true [https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/enterpris...](https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/enterprise_sales)

* How do you combat copycats, fake versions, ...?</comment>


Saudi King's jailed "princesses" - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/23/dont-forget-the-late-saudi-kings-jailed-princesses/

<comment><USER2> We ought to send Mario to rescue the princesses ;-)</comment>


Ask HN: Recommend YouTube Exercise Videos? - <AUTHOR> On the heels of last week's "synchronized YouTube video to do fitness in groups" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22890595
Do you have a favorite 'follow along' exercise YouTube video or channel?
Looking for all types of recommendations: Yoga, cardio, bodyweight fitness, strength training... <comment><USER2> MON [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7PxzgfXQvg&list=PLobC7gO3zo...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7PxzgfXQvg&list=PLobC7gO3zoTetT4rhnrVY85I-dU0kW5ht)

WED [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPW6VRZXFic&list=PLobC7gO3zo...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPW6VRZXFic&list=PLobC7gO3zoTdqaE4fKqWuqcVNixK5Myhr)

FRI [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca7q8xFYTEY&list=PLobC7gO3zo...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca7q8xFYTEY&list=PLobC7gO3zoTdoKWegxVsyJPIJtXvn25eq)

for yoga - [https://bit.ly/2KghBRI](https://bit.ly/2KghBRI) at yoga at home section

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://www.youtube.com/user/KozakSportsPerform/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/KozakSportsPerform/videos)</comment>


Ask HN: How to be a Kick-ass Designer - <AUTHOR>

I'm really interested in learning how to be a kick-ass designer. I've been told I have a great eye for design/aesthetics, so it'd be great to put it to good use. Interested in making beautiful icons, websites, app interfaces, etc. What would be the best way to learn? Best resources?
PS. Would I need to go to school for it? I've heard otherwise, as designers like (@dcurtis) were self-taught.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Hah. I'm from Toronto too (looked at your Twitter).

I'm a designer (though not kick-ass) so here is my input.

Design school is very different from one another. Some design schools focus on style while others are focus on conceptual development. Neither is inherently better than the other.

While you can be self-taught, I would say school was great for making important connections in my career and in exposing me to different subjects that would add to my creative arsenal (namely photography).

If you have a good eye, that's a great start. Having a sense of style is supremely important as a designer since having a creative vision is one of the core responsibilities.

I think some of the best resources are books that deal with some of the principles. Josef Muller Brockmann Grid System in Graphic Design is certainly one of the Holy Grail books of grids. Reading about Typography is also of utmost importance if you indeed to do web design, as it plays such a central role.

But I think some of the most important things are: doing a huge volume of work and getting critiques from designers who you respect. Both of these will help you get a feel of what is right and wrong.

And if you can, intern or work for an agency/studio for a bit. You'll learn TONS.

</comment><comment><USER3> Find a designer you like, and ask them for a job. Failing that, offer to do some work for them for free.</comment>


Chornas – A chronological and cartographical view of historical events - <AUTHOR> http://chronas.org/history <comment><USER2> There is an ios/android app that does this too: [http://worldhistorymapsapp.com/](http://worldhistorymapsapp.com/).

</comment><comment><USER3> Chornas – A chronological and cartographical view of historical events

</comment><comment><USER4> Very cool! I've wanted something like this for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER5> very interesting here

</comment><comment><USER6> pretty cool</comment>